The Energy Revolution has begun and will change your lifestyle

Welcome to the Energy Blog

The Energy Blog is where all topics relating to The Energy Revolution are presented. Increasingly, expensive oil, coal and global warming are causing an energy revolution by requiring fossil fuels to be supplemented by alternative energy sources and by requiring changes in lifestyle. Please contact me with your comments and questions. Further Information about me can be found HERE.

February 10, 2007

White House Claims US Doing Better Than EU on Reducing GHG

The White House said on Wednesday the United States had done better at reducing carbon emissions than Europe, where US President George W. Bush's stance on global warming has been sharply criticized. ...

Figures from the International Energy Agency indicated that from 2000 to 2004, US carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel combustion grew by 1.7 percent, while in the European Union such emissions grew by 5 percent. ...

In response, US officials played down the country's contribution to climate change, although the United States is responsible for one-quarter of the world's carbon dioxide emissions and uses one-quarter of the world's crude oil.

Also the fact that over 500,000 Easten Europeans (alone!) have entered the UK to work since enlargement occurred means that if the UK has still managed to keep CO2 emissions - stable would be REMARKABLE.

The White house needs to account for changing population rates - and CO2 PER PERSON in its calculations to be truely representative.

And also CO2 emissions taking into account each contributing separate sector of industry.

Simply coming out with a statement "we're better than them" isn't helpful as the situation is far far more complex than that.

The White House - Tony Snow in particular should know better than "muddying the waters".

I've read the open letter from the White House:"Our unparalleled financial commitment and responsible policies are working, and we are on track to meet the President’s goal. Our emissions performance since 2000 is among the best in the world. According to the International Energy Agency, from 2000-2004, as our population increased and our economy grew by nearly 10%, U.S. carbon dioxide emissions increased by only 1.7%. During the same period, European Union carbon dioxide emissions grew by 5%,
with lower economic growth."

was a key section....

Although as I mentioned - the EU enlargement has ment that Eastern European industries have had to be incorporated - often being less technologically advanced/inefficient and CO2 contributing than Western European equivalents. This is much like Germany's situation after the fall of the Iron Curtain - but on a much grander scale!

Economic development in Eastern Europe should improve the situation dramatically. Acheiving a greater harmony in terms of technology.

The EU situation is incredibly dynamic due to the enlargement process.

It is not as clear cut as in the case of the US, China or India whom are already united and where technological applications have occurred more uniformly!

This whole debate about "reductions" is completely flawed. First off, talking about "reduction" disadvantages those who already emit less than their neighbours, such as the French. Second, this will escalate. Next year you'll hear politicians claiming that they "increased their rate of reduction faster" than some arbitrarily selected scapegoat.

Only one number matters: CO2 emissions per capita and time unit. Maybe it could be normalised for some measure of wealth, well-being, whatever. No matter the details, comparing relative reductions is simply bullshit.

Of all the CO2 and global warming discussions I have read, finally someone has issued a most intellegent comment. Thank you Udo. Your final word pretty well sums up the whole situation.... it's all bullshit. We live on a changing planet that has been changing for 5 billion years. Why would a reasonable person expect it to suddenly be static? People in the near earth future are very lucky the earth is on a warming trend rather than cooling.

What's really exciting is the great response we see for replacements and substitutions for finite energy resources i.e. the Energy Revolution as Jim has coined it.

Opportunities abound. Life has never been cleaner, longer or better and the future looks even brighter. JohnBo

The fact the French is dominated by nuclear generation influences the life-cycle angle. This pushes problems further down the lifecycle unfortunately...

I agree there should be a common standard "metric" or measure... not some statement that implys one is better than the other - when the actual sitaution is different. The fact the US still accounts for 22% of global emissions of CO2 per annum ... says something... relative to the USA population 300 million out of global 6000 million people. (and the EU's 400 million ...)

I agree Urdo - "RELATIVE" is too close to "muddying the waters".

At the end of the day only "ABSOLUTE" CO2 emission reductions are important to us all in the bigger debate.

We should avoid politico-speak as much as possible.

I think Al Gore did this pretty well. Does this mean the more "conservative elements" of the political scene are simply unable to grasp the real issue.

And Sir N Stern did pretty well also in his report.

Lord Lawson's (pathetic) attempt at debunking the "Stern Report" recently was laughable in front of a UK parliamentary commitee. The points he made didn't make sense. I have respect for the man as a former chancellor - albeit not all that successful, but I think that how it should remain - former.

He's ideologically more interested in the top 10%'s prosperity rather than a wider view for all of society. And he's interested in the traditional controllers interests over the energy supply in the economic markets. Not seeing the potential for FUTURE economic markets that alternative energy / energy efficient technologies and their spin-offs could generate.

I'm watching the debate anyway. Hoping that the more progressive and less ideologically driven (with special interest) politicians win the day on Energy issues...

NB* I'm no politician - I'm a scientist and an amateur economist. I just thought looking up some of these things would be interesting...

Some notes on Lord Lawson - I just dug up... that further diminish the weight of his critical public remarks on the Stern Report:

1. Friday, 3 August, 2001
"Lord Lawson warns of recession"BBC REPORT
"Britain is heading for recession, according to former Chancellor Nigel Lawson.
Lord Lawson, who held the reins at the Treasury when the stock market crashed in 1987, was speaking after the Bank of England announced a surprise cut in interest rates.
"We are about to have a recession and that is something which increasingly something the financial markets are reckoning"
Lord Lawson, Former chancellor
"The downturn could be made worse, he added, by the false security of Chancellor Gordon Brown's claim to have ended the cycle of boom and bust"."

The UK is OFFICIALLY in the longest period of sustained economic growth from 1999-2007. SEE ARTICLE from 2004 below: BBC REPORT

- I'm not a particular Labour Party supporter or Conservative - but having lived through the early 1990's it is much more stable now than I remember it being then. Despite criticisms the Labour government deserve - they can't be knocked on this. (I acknowledge the erosion of the UK manufacturing base in the Labour time also incidently)...

2. Wednesday, 1 November 2006
"Lawson attacks green 'alarmists'"BBC REPORT
"Scientists warning of climate change disaster are "eco-fundamentalists" who regard any argument as "blasphemy", former chancellor Lord Lawson has said.
He warned of "alarmist" predictions and said some countries would "actually benefit from a warmer climate".
This week, economist Sir Nicholas Stern said mankind had to act "urgently" to stop temperature increases.
But Lord Lawson told the Centre for Policy Studies sea level rises should not be "too difficult to live with"."

-"But Lord Lawson, who served as chancellor for six years under Margaret Thatcher, said scientists had a "pre-determined alarmist global narrative", containing "distinctly unconvincing" models for climate change.
Some countries would benefit from higher temperatures, as farmers would adapt by growing new crops, he added."

NB - This was pre - the IPCC REPORT SUMMARY came out earlier THIS YEAR. ("90% certainty that Climate Warming is anthropogenic")BBC REPORT

HERE HE SAYS HE THINKS THE IPCC PANEL SHOULD BE SHUT DOWN!!!!

Is this man in reality???? I admit there are some Environmental fundamentalists - I'm not one of them - but equally they do have genuine concerns... (having dismantled the IPCC) I suppose he would be a person saying in 10 years time - "how did this happen"???? * if he were alive then as he'll be entering extreme old age...

Having read some of his comments - it appears that he was wheeled out to make the counter arguement - being one of the only people WILLING to make any sort of counter arguement.

I'm going to look up his previous "special interests" in any event.

Either way - I don't think his arguements have much strength. Infact, I agree with counter arguements to his and the points that Alternative Energy techs will generate wealth generation opportunities in a more sustainable manner.

If I merely based a decision on Lawsons previously documented handling of the UK economy in the 1980's... I'm going with Stern.

Plus all the scientific consensus points that way anyway. Anyone I've read going against that view has generally had an underlying agenda or some ideological viewpoint that "skews" their arguements.

Climate drifts we are seeing in the recent 100 years have not happened before - Factual.

My view is that we still should aim for new technologies and "cap" the system using trading systems and anything else that could aliviate the situation. This is since "traditional" models of economics were made when we were living well within the environmental limits of the globe. We aren't now. This is the point.

JohnBo writes: We live on a changing planet that has been changing for 5 billion years. Why would a reasonable person expect it to suddenly be static? People in the near earth future are very lucky the earth is on a warming trend rather than cooling.

I agree there should be a common standard "metric" or measure... not some statement that implys one is better than the other - when the actual sitaution is different. The fact the US still accounts for 22% of global emissions of CO2 per annum ... says something... relative to the USA population 300 million out of global 6000 million people. (and the EU's 400 million ...)

Phycotech’s mission is to provide its customers with leading edge photo bioreactor technology. By providing cost effective technology for the production of high quality algal biomass we hope to contribute the continued growth of an algal industry that will play a key role in a more sustainable world.